Fide Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 The point being that ignorance is easily curable, Campbell chooses to remain ignorant on this point. Gender Dismorphia is not a choice, it's a state of being, like depression, inextricably linked to the brain and psyche of a person, Brain and body don't match so you perform surgery to better align the two. Even if you accept Campbell's stance in holding his own opinion on what a transgender person is or isn't, it seems callous and unecessarily cruel to another human in pain to continually refer to them as a 'bloke in a dress'. Not that he's alone in that respect, radical feminist Julie Bindle drew the ire of many for referring to trans women just as Campbell did, only last year Suzanne Moore in the guardian referred to trans women as men with mutilated genitals. Indeed there is a whole section of the feminist movement that seeks to exclude transgender from their fight. It doesn't mean that Campbell is wrong on any number of other issues, neither hero worship or excommunication is necessary here, and it's also true that there is probably a great number of people who leap on him over this issue when their own previous thinking on the matter was muddled at best and probably similar to Campbell's at worst to start with. I'm not denying the struggle or pain that trans people experience, and I sympathise with them. You are never going to get everyone to understand. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't attempt to educate. Take large swathes of the older generation, for example. You'd be as well trying to shoot the moon as try and make them understand the struggle trans people experience. It's just one of those topics where you're never going to get a unanimous consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Some opinion is subjective, other cannot be, and must be based on objective anaylsis and evidence. The rights of Transgender people to identify as they please and to be treated as such by the rest of society has solid grounding in decades of pyschology and neuroscience. As counter intuitive as it seems, she is not a bloke in a dress, regardless of Y-chromozone. The thing your fail to acknowledge is that society does not universally accept it. Just as they don't universally accept the existence of global warming, depression or God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 I'm not denying the struggle or pain that trans people experience, and I sympathise with them. You are never going to get everyone to understand. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't attempt to educate. Take large swathes of the older generation, for example. You'd be as well trying to shoot the moon as try and make them understand the struggle trans people experience. It's just one of those topics where you're never going to get a unanimous consensus. Which is what we've been trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 The thing your fail to acknowledge is that society does not universally accept it. Just as they don't universally accept the existence of global warming, depression or God. I acknowledge it fine, ignorance is curable by the act of educating yourself. Plenty choose not to, that's fine, their lookout. The salient point being that it doesn't make them right. Once upon a time it was not universally accepted by society that the earth was round, that women were as capable as men, that black people could be free people with the same rights as white people, That people held such opinions did not make it so, the world was still round when they thought it was flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Which is what we've been trying to do. What I'm trying to say is this - if you went to a working men's pub in the east end of Glasgow and showed a group of retired old guys a picture of Antony Hegarty and tried to explain the struggle she's been through. Do you think they would empathise? I'm afraid it's just one of those things that will never be full consensus on, whether that's right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 What I'm trying to say is this - if you went to a working men's pub in the east end of Glasgow and showed a group of retired old guys a picture of Antony Hegarty and tried to explain the struggle she's been through. Do you think they would empathise? I'm afraid it's just one of those things that will never be full consensus on, whether that's right or wrong. And in what way does that excuse Campbell from airing shitty and oppressive views? The onus isn't on me or anyone else is to stop calling these people out, the onus is on them to either stop airing their shitty views or accept that what they're doing is not acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 What I'm trying to say is this - if you went to a working men's pub in the east end of Glasgow and showed a group of retired old guys a picture of Antony Hegarty and tried to explain the struggle she's been through. Do you think they would empathise? I'm afraid it's just one of those things that will never be full consensus on, whether that's right or wrong. f**k it we just won't bother then. Leaving aside your lack of faith in working class people to hold liberal views, What do you think would happen if you went to the same pub and showed a photo of two guys kissing or Shaker Aamar? Campbell's comments are wilfully and obstinately ignorant. He has a right to hold them of course. However, by giving voice to them he encourages and legitimises transphobia in others and so should be challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 I acknowledge it fine, ignorance is curable by the act of educating yourself. Plenty choose not to, that's fine, their lookout. The salient point being that it doesn't make them right. Once upon a time it was not universally accepted by society that the earth was round, that women were as capable as men, that black people could be free people with the same rights as white people, That people held such opinions did not make it so, the world was still round when they thought it was flat. Lack of education is not the issue, people can be highly educated and still disagree even on evidence based judgements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Lack of education is not the issue, people can be highly educated and still disagree even on evidence based judgements. Not objectively you can't. Two educated and objective observers should come to the same conclusion when presented with significant evidence of a case. Failure to do so is evidence of pre existing bias or prejudice on one or the others part. Where there exists enough unknown data, or subjective input you can find plenty of good debate. I'd hazard that the inability to correctly identify a transgender person by their self identified gender does not count in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Not objectively you can't. Two educated and objective observers should come to the same conclusion when presented with significant evidence of a case. Failure to do so is evidence of pre existing bias or prejudice on one or the others part. Where there exists enough unknown data, or subjective input you can find plenty of good debate. I'd hazard that the inability to correctly identify a transgender person by their self identified gender does not count in that regard. Sorry I have to disagree. Every day there are dissenting opinions when presented with the same evidence with the Supreme Court being a perfect example. Your last sentence is the one that actually requires absolute belief (or to use your own word pre-existing bias) in your own interpretation of a subject. Is your opinion more valid than, for example, Dr Paul McHugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 Sorry I have to disagree. Every day there are dissenting opinions when presented with the same evidence with the Supreme Court being a perfect example. Your last sentence is the one that actually requires absolute belief (or to use your own word pre-existing bias) in your own interpretation of a subject. Is your opinion more valid than, for example, Dr Paul McHugh? Interpretation of the law is exactly that, interpretation of a qualitative, rather than quantitative input. Of course that will throw up disagreements, many of which will be based on the pre existing experience, biases and prejudices of the judges present, hence the need for balance. Something like this though can be analytically quantified to a certain degree, the preponderance of available data points towards physical differences in brain structures between transgender people and the median of the rest of the population. Study after study has shown an identification with the opposite gender to their birthed one well before the onset of puberty. Attempts to "cure" them of their underlying issues through psychiatry fail, time and again. I'm happy to admit a certain simplification in prior statements as to absolute objectivity, as such a thing is basically impossible. And of course different doctors examining a subject from different narrow angles may come up with different theories, that does not detract from the overall body of work and the conclusions drawn from that. That's not to say scientific. Orthodoxy is full proof, far from it. In absence of any better theory, we should however contemporarily recognise gender dismorphia as real, as the vast body of medical opinion suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 The whole "but pure objectivity is impossible" is just a more sophisticated form of the argument: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 The whole "but pure objectivity is impossible" is just a more sophisticated form of the argument: So you say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Campbell's comments are wilfully and obstinately ignorant. He has a right to hold them of course. However, by giving voice to them he encourages and legitimises transphobia in others and so should be challenged. What abject, utter bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Interpretation of the law is exactly that, interpretation of a qualitative, rather than quantitative input. Of course that will throw up disagreements, many of which will be based on the pre existing experience, biases and prejudices of the judges present, hence the need for balance. Something like this though can be analytically quantified to a certain degree, the preponderance of available data points towards physical differences in brain structures between transgender people and the median of the rest of the population. Study after study has shown an identification with the opposite gender to their birthed one well before the onset of puberty. Attempts to "cure" them of their underlying issues through psychiatry fail, time and again. I'm happy to admit a certain simplification in prior statements as to absolute objectivity, as such a thing is basically impossible. And of course different doctors examining a subject from different narrow angles may come up with different theories, that does not detract from the overall body of work and the conclusions drawn from that. That's not to say scientific. Orthodoxy is full proof, far from it. In absence of any better theory, we should however contemporarily recognise gender dismorphia as real, as the vast body of medical opinion suggests. What you are suggesting is that when the majority of people thought the earth was flat then you would have agreed as this was the current opinion. Since we have very limited understanding of the brain, I will take any conclusions drawn from physical differences with a pinch of salt and that the medical community cannot screen for the transgender would lead you to believe that such differences in transgender people can equally exist in non transgender. Interestingly the scientific and medical study referred to by in the article that I previously linked to has indicated that between 70-80% of children expressing transgender feelings subsequently lost them. Just for clarity, I am in no way arguing that people should not be able to identify and express themselves in whichever way they feel, only that people can have an opinion on this and that such an opinion is no less valid than any other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 There's nothing valid about purposely dead naming and misgendering another human unless you have absolutely zero understanding of abuse tactics against Trans people. Zero understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Lets be absolutely clear here, if some Unionist bellend with a blog - say, Iain Smart - had being deliberately misgendering Chelsea Manning, plenty of people defending #TehRev would be sticking the boot into Smart (and rightly so). It just happens to be the man behind Wings Over Scotland and he's been a great help for "The Cause". He made transphobic comments. He was wrong. Just because he's on "our side" doesn't mean he isn't above criticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 The point I have repeatedly made is that a lot of Unionists, who do not give one shite about Chelsea Manning or the wider transgender movement, have jumped on this as a stick to beat WoS with. Now, admittedly, Campbell would probably have been better to keep his opinions to himself and not give them ammo, but a lot of the ire directed at WoS is from those who see it as an "in" to have a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 And in what way does that excuse Campbell from airing shitty and oppressive views? What oppressive view? The view that people can do what they want and he doesn't give a French flying f**k about their lifestyle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 What you are suggesting is that when the majority of people thought the earth was flat then you would have agreed as this was the current opinion. Since we have very limited understanding of the brain, I will take any conclusions drawn from physical differences with a pinch of salt and that the medical community cannot screen for the transgender would lead you to believe that such differences in transgender people can equally exist in non transgender. Interestingly the scientific and medical study referred to by in the article that I previously linked to has indicated that between 70-80% of children expressing transgender feelings subsequently lost them. Just for clarity, I am in no way arguing that people should not be able to identify and express themselves in whichever way they feel, only that people can have an opinion on this and that such an opinion is no less valid than any other. not quite, as it's the difference between informed opinion and not. As for the study, there is a reason a lot of pyschiatric care and study goes into each patient, and a period of living as the opposite gender before being allowed to transition fully. As for the last bit, nope, people can have an opinion but it can still be ill informed, and therefore less valid and can and should be challenged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.